Sexton

The petitioner raises the question of whether a trial court must either deny or dismiss a late-filed motion to compel the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (Z) when the responding party failed to raise that objection in its written opposition, but did raise it orally at the hearing on the motion. 1 We conclude that the statutory 45-day limitation imposed by section 2031, subdivision (Z) is mandatory. Accordingly, the trial court was required to deny the motion.

*1405 Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner, Donald Sexton, sued for negligence the Mullikin Medical Center, the real party in interest. Mullikin answered and commenced discovery proceedings on September 9, 1996, by personally serving by hand delivery a demand for the production of documents pursuant to section 2031. The demand was for 20 all-inclusive categories of documents relating to petitioner’s claim. The petitioner served his responses on September 27, 1996, objecting to 16 of the demands. By an exchange of letters on October 15,1996, and October 17,1996, the parties attempted to resolve their dispute over the objections, but to no avail. Mullikin…

I concur in the judgment, and I agree with the reasoning of the opinion except for part IV of the discussion. It is clear to me that the trial court’s rule 9.15 (Super. Ct. L. A. County Rules, rule 9.15) does not apply to the facts under review since the petitioner did file opposition to the motion to compel. I would not reach the validity issue of a hypothetical local rule that required all timeliness objections to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 to be raised by written response. I would, instead, confine our opinion to the issue before us. Doing so, I would, and do, conclude that the trial court was without authority to compel further response to the request for production.

O'Flaherty & Belgum, Robert M. Dato and Brian P. Barrow for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.

The petitioner raises the question of whether a trial court must either deny or dismiss a late-filed motion to compel the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision ( l ) when the responding party failed to raise that objection in its written opposition, but did raise it orally at the hearing on the motion. [1] We conclude that the statutory 45-day limitation imposed by section 2031, subdivision ( l ) is mandatory. Accordingly, the trial court was required to deny the motion.

Petitioner, Donald Sexton, sued for negligence the Mullikin Medical Center, the real party in interest. Mullikin answered and commenced discovery proceedings on September 9, 1996, by personally serving by hand delivery a demand for the production of documents pursuant to section 2031. The demand was for 20 all-inclusive categories of documents relating to petitioner's claim. The petitioner served his responses on September 27, 1996, objecting to 16 of the demands. By an exchange of letters on October 15, 1996, and October 17, 1996, the parties attempted…